Cool News
Madam Z whips on THE STORY OF US
Hey Folks, Harry here. Well here we have Madam Z with a view on THE STORY OF US, Rob Reiner's latest film, that runs in the exact opposite direction of Moriarty's view of the film. Now, at one level you have to wonder exactly how reliabe the opinion of an EVIL genius can be when it comes to a love (or anti-love) story. But then you must remember... Something turned him evil. Well, one is an evil genius and the other a mysterious lady of the night. Whom do you trust to gauge THE STORY OF US? Well... all I know is come October 15th, I'm watching FIGHT CLUB... THE STORY OF US while on my list... will have to wait.
I imagine that by titling his film "The Story of Us", director Rob Reiner
and writers Alan Zweibel and Jessie Nelson mean to imply that they have
given us a moving, heartrending meditation on the pain that we all
experience in trying to sustain love over the years. I admire this
intention, because marriage is seldom examined in film except
as the happily-ever-after ending or as the basic structure in a family
story. This is unfortunate, as marriage holds a deep-seated, mythical
power over the human psyche. It's a symbolic reflection of our
relationship with God as well as the most intimate relationship with
another human being most of us will ever experience. I would like to see
a film that illuminates the difficulties of long-term relationships,
perhaps especially one starring one actor who has just gone through a
heartbreaking divorce and another who is still struggling, with apparent
success, to maintain a happy marriage--not out of prurient interest, but
because it's always beautiful when actors can offer up their personal
experiences in order to help others see their own lives. Unfortunately,
this is not that film.
"The Story of Us" comes across as a self-absorbed, ego-inflated,
voyeuristic examination of a couple who have no chemistry, love or
tension between them. When the film begins, Bruce Willis and Michelle
Pfeiffer are an upper middle-class L.A. couple who have already decided
that their marriage is over. They inexplicably hate each other after
years together and two "beautiful" children. Apparently, he "colors
outside the lines" and she's too critical; therefore, the relationship is
obviously doomed. The picture is told in flashback sequences, including
one unbearable montage with the obligatory
"family-gleefully-dancing-like-the-Temptations" shot, none of which give
any glimpse into why the couple loved each other in the first place or
why they hate each other now. Willis and Pfeiffer fail to provide any of
the necessary sparks to make us care whether they stay together or not.
In fact, I half suspect they were never in the same room together during
filming and were simply spliced together during editing.
Everything about this movie, from Pfeiffer's freakish beauty to the view
from Paul Reiser (playing a Hollywood agent)'s office to the haven't I
seen this a milliion times before? gender-divided restaurant table
scenes--where the men talk about masturbating and the women talk about
the glory of the vagina--looks, sounds and feels completely phony,
made-up and predictable. The jokes are tired and feel tacked-on
(example: Willis' best friend, played by Reiner, tries to encourage him
to stay in the marriage by explaining how the ass is an illusion--it's
really just the top of the legs. Funny, huh?), the two main characters
have no personalities and are basically interchangeable, and any
conventions and themes the movie sets up in the beginning are never
completed. For instance, the marriage was apparently perfect until the
children were born, yet they constantly weep and moan about how much
they're going to miss the kids when they break up. In another
inconsistency, the couple goes to great lengths to hide the fact
that they are having trouble from the children by pretending to go out to
celebrate their anniversary, waiting until the kids are away at summer
camp to seperate, etc. However, in a flashback we see them screaming the
f-word at one another repeatedly, while the daughter calls from a nearby
room for mom to bring her a glass of water. Also, since the film shows
us a marriage already supposedly over and never once shows the couple
making any attempt to work things out, the contract with the audience is
unforgivably betrayed when a happy ending rears its ugly head out of
nowhere except the top of Rob Reiner's legs.
Although the version I saw was a rough cut, I can't imagine it being
improved by editing. The story was too confusing. (Did you get that?
The story which involved NOTHING EXCEPT WHETHER OR NOT A COUPLE WAS GOING
TO BREAK UP WAS TOO CONFUSING!) The characters were dull, the jokes were
not funny and the stars' presence detracted rather than added to the
picture. The only thing I can imagine being improved is the soundtrack,
which at this point consists of one annoying song by Eric Clapton played
over and over and over. Do yourself a favor: if you've ever had marriage
troubles and would like to experience the catharsis of seeing the story
of you up on the screen, don't see this picture. Unless you happen to be
phony, fake and given to making arbitrary decisions that have no basis in
your real life whatsoever.
--madam z
-
+ Expand All
-
everytime I hear or see this title: THE STORY OF US" I always think about that soft=core flick the story of o. thats all i have to say!
-
From madame Z's description this sounds like an incompetent version of the War of the Roses. I mean, it's been done before and better, so why do it again? And wasn't there another similar movie, Kramer vs. Kramer, a couple of decades ago.
Frankly, I think Michelle Pfeifer is taking a lot of substandard scripts. She was marvelous in Married to the Mob and the Baker Boys, but she seems to be taking the easy way out with the scripts -- or is it that living with David Kelley makes her not analyze scripts better?
-
Sep 20, 1999 11:54:45 AM CDT
Clues to Madam Z's insanity (who is FAR more scary than Moriarty
by my2cents
Madam Z, you scare me. #1-Are you some born again religious fanatic? Since when does marriage symbolize our relationship to God? Last I checked, marriage is simply an institutional union between two PEOPLE. If they choose to invite God into the equation, good for them. But it is a unique and personal choice for each and every couple and ONLY represents what THEY choose it to represent. #2-Eric Clapton IS God. Anyone who thinks that his music is annoying has obviously got a screw loose. #3-How could you POSSIBLY consider yourself a film critic if you can't get past the "presence" of two star actors? They are "too distracting" you say? No wonder you found the film "confusing." I can only imagine that you sat there dumbfounded (in all your glorious insanity) staring and drooling at the faces of Bruce and Michelle, repeating to yourself..."So-o-o BEE-UUU--TI- FULLLLL" like a moth draw to a flame. I suspect any major Hollywood movie would be expecting too much of your brain power to look at major stars AND follow the story. I'd recommend that you stick to indie films with no-name actors, but then the plots will probably be too confusing for you. As I see it, your best option is to opt out. But that is just my opinion. In the future, I will NOT be wasting my time reading any of your reviews.
-
Ya know, I think it sucks that anyone who displays their own beliefs is immediately tarred with the epithet of "religious fanatic".
-
Oh, and even the Beatles wrote some crappy songs. It is possible that Slowhand just may have turned out some lemons for this film.
-
YOU are the one jumping to conclusions by inferring that I am an atheist. At no point in my talkback did I state that I did NOT believe in God. I happen to be a VERY spiritual person. I was asking a question of Madam Z, not making a conclusion. And the question was justly asked based on her statement: "...marriage holds a deep-seated, mythical power over the human psyche. It's a symbolic reflection of our relationship with God ..." That is a powerful statement! And it was stated with conviction that did not leave an invitation for alternative interpretation. As for Clapton (and the Beatles)...this does NOT happen to be one of those songs. Although she is entitled to her opinion, this song is classic Clapton. And it was repetitive in the film only in the sense of a true classic movie theme.
-
I apologize for appearing to make snap judgements. However, I stand by my opinion, as I'm sure you do.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts